Talk:There are no fossil ancestors of insects
From EvoWiki
I removed this:
- It is problematic for evolutionism because the scale of geological time is so vast that one would expect insects - amongst the most successful of all animal groups - to be abundant from their very first appearance, together with their evolutionary ancestors.
Why would one expect this? Sounds like total nonsense to me. Taxa can be abundant in one time period and rare in another without any problems. Also, "evolutionism" is not a word a non-creationist would use, so I am suspicious whether the whole edit of this anon is trustworthy. Who knows anything about this subject? --tk (t) 09:14, 15 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Contradictory information
I deleted the following baseless anti-evolution claim. It was written in the section of replies to the claim that there are no fossil ancestor to insects, but starts by saying that the claim is actually true! There are fossil insects spread around the whole world, and dated from the Devonian to the Holocene/present. The www.earthhistory.co.uk website is yet another one of those crackpot science sites.
- The claim that the record of insect origins is completely blank is true. The Rhyniognatha insect documented by Engel and Grimaldi's from the early Devonian has derived characters, i.e. is not a primitive insect. Indeed it is so advanced that some of these characters are shared with winged insects, which must have evolved after wingless insects. The authors therefore conclude that insects and hexapods must have originated during the Silurian period, i.e. out of sight of the fossil record. An alternative explanation for these aspects of the fossil record may be found at www.earthhistory.co.uk where it is suggested that the pattern most closely reflects a process of global recolonisation.
- Uh... the claim is not that there are no fossil insects. The claim is that there are no fossil insect ancestors. That is, what Archaeopteryx is for the birds. Some proto-insect. And some (very few) creationist claims are technically true, but just not prove what they are used to prove. In those cases, the responses point that out. --tk (t) 08:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
- I restored the previous arguement in other words, and adding how, even if technically correct, it does not detract from the theory of evolution. Also added some extra information. I recon some of it is still repetitive, so any editing is welcome. --Barkingbeetle 01:21, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
